alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.2






  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


I, Steven C. Preston, the chief financial officer of The ServiceMaster  Company,
certify that that (i) the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended
September 30, 2002,  fully complies with  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the  information  contained in
such  Form  10-Q  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the  financial
condition and results of operations of The ServiceMaster Company.








                                                       /s/    Steven C. Preston
                                                              Steven C. Preston
                                                              November 14, 2002
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the amended Annual Report of Phantom Fiber Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Jeffrey
      T. Halloran ,
      Chief
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/
Jeffrey
              T. HalloranApril
              12, 2007
            
            Jeffrey
                T. HalloranChief
                Executive Officer and
              Principal
                Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

 

FELIX D. WHITTINGTON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DONALD VAUGHN, et al.,

 Defendants.

 CIVIL ACTION

 NO. 02-4346

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 19th day of June, 2003, it is ORDERED that the attached

communication shall be filed by the Clerk.

BY THE COURT:

 

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04346-MK Document 81 Filed 06/19/2003 Page 1 of 1
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT	&"Arial,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2024 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2023-04	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII CER - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 2/15/23
**EXHIBIT 32.3**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report ofInternational Aluminum Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the periodending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”), I, Mitchell K. Fogelman, the Senior Vice President-Finance andChief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto my knowledge:

 

1.                    The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                    Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  September 21, 2004 | MITCHELL K. FOGELMAN                 |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|                                | Mitchell K. Fogelman                 |   |
|                                | Senior Vice President – Finance |   |
|                                | and Chief Financial Officer          |   |

 

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

KOOROSH AFSHARI (SBN 160830) DARRIN W. MERCIER, ESQ. (SBN 166125)

AFSHARI LAW FIRM THOMAS J. LINVILLE II, ESQ. (SBN 221434) 

455 Market Street, Suite 1910 LAW OFFICES OF DARRIN MERCIER

San Francisco, CA 94105 409 West Center Street

Telephone: (415) 882-3248 Yreka, CA 96097

Fax: (415) 882-3232 Telephone : (530) 842-2054

kalaw@pacbell.net Fax: (530) 842-9340

 sisqlaw@cot.net

MELVILLE OWEN (SBN 27374) MATTHEW R. EASON, ESQ. (SBN 160148) 

LINDA J. KATTWINKEL (SBN 164283) EASON & TAMBORNINI 

BONNIE J. BARNISH (SBN 192771) 1819 “K” Street, Suite 200

OWEN, WICKERSHAM & Sacramento, CA 95814

ERICKSON, P.C. Telephone: (916) 438-1819

455 Market Street, Suite 1900 Fax: (916) 438-1820

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415) 882-3200

Fax: (415) 882-3232

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Attorneys for Defendant and 

Counterclaim Defendant Four Rivers Counterclaim Plaintiff 

 Broadcasting, Inc. VBNJ, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

FOUR RIVERS BROADCASTING, INC., a

Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

VBNJ, INC., dba MT. SHASTA BREWING

COMPANY, a California corporation,

Defendant.

_____________________________________

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM 

_____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. S-04-0580 FCD KJM

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE

Case 2:04-cv-00580-FCD-KJM Document 39 Filed 06/01/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

On may 11, 2005, the parties herein reached a settlement the details of which were made

of record. As part of the settlement, the parties agreed to the Court’s continuing jurisdiction over

the settlement for enforcement/ compliance purposes for a period of five years, and further agreed

to appoint Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows to preside over any such proceedings. 

Thus, IT IS ORDERED that this case be dismissed with prejudice with each party paying

its own fees, costs and expenses, and Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows shall retain

jurisdiction over the settlement for enforcement/ compliance purposes as the presiding judge for a

period of five years from the date set forth below. 

Dated: May 31, 2005

/s/ Frank c. Damrell Jr. 

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00580-FCD-KJM Document 39 Filed 06/01/05 Page 2 of 2
Part 2 DRAFT Fiscal Year 2022 Reporting 

SUPPLEMENT Section VII 

U.S. Standard General Ledger 

Closing Edits Detail Report 

Bulletin No. 2021-17 DRAFT VII CER - 1 IRC Handout 4/21/21

Edit Rule Number: 21 

Rule Name: Fiscal Year Budgetary Closing Edit 

Description: The amount for the current fiscal year beginning USSGL accounts must equal the amount for the 

GTAS calculated beginning balances. 

Rule Type: CL: Closing Edits 

Operand: Equal (=) 

Fatal Period: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12 

 

Closing Rule Number: 21.413700 

Closing USSGL Account: 413700 Transfers of Contract Authority - Allocation - Current-Year Authority 

Calculated Preclosing Balance 413700 Beginning Balance 

USSGL Account 

Number Begin/End Indicator 

USSGL Account 

Number Begin/End Indicator 

413700 E 413700 B 

413712 E 

415500 E 

 

Closing Rule Number: 21.415300 

Closing USSGL Account: 415300 Transfers of Contract Authority - Non-Allocation - Current-Year Authority 

Calculated Preclosing Balance 415300 Beginning Balance 

USSGL Account 

Number Begin/End Indicator 

USSGL Account 

Number Begin/End Indicator 

415300 E 415300 B 

415312 E 

415400 E 

 
Part 2 DRAFT Fiscal Year 2022 Reporting 

SUPPLEMENT Section VII 

U.S. Standard General Ledger 

Closing Edits Detail Report 

Bulletin No. 2021-17 DRAFT VII CER - 2 IRC Handout 4/21/21

Closing Rule Number: 21.420100 

Closing USSGL Account: 420100 Total Actual Resources - Collected 

Calculated Preclosing Balance 420100 Beginning Balance 

USSGL Account 

Number Begin/End Indicator Authority Type Code 

USSGL Account 

Number Begin/End Indicator 

411100 E D/P 420100 B 

411200 E 

411300 E D/P 

411400 E D/P 

411500 E D/P 

411600 E P 

411601 E P 

411700 E D/P 

411800 E 

411900 E D/E/F/P 

411910 E D/E/F/P 

411912 E P 

412500 E 

412800 E B/P 

412900 E B/P 

413000 E 

413800 E 

414200 E 

414201 E 

414202 E 

414600 E B/P/S 

414700 E 

414800 E 

415000 E 

415100 E P/S 

415200 E 

415900 E B/P 

415901 E B/P 

416700 E P/S 

416712 E P 

417000 E D/P/S 

417300 E P/S 

417400 E X 

417500 E P/S 

417600 E P/S 

419000 E P/S 

419100 E P/S 

419200 E P/S 

419300 E P/S 

419500 E 

419600 E P/S 

419700 E P/S
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: AMERICAN INVESTORS :

LIFE INSURANCE CO. ANNUITY : MDL DOCKET NO. 1712

MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES :

LITIGATION :

 ORDER

AND NOW, this 22nd day of February, 2010, upon

consideration of the plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce this Court’s

Final Order Approving the Settlement and for Related Relief

(Docket No. 472), Martha Michael’s opposition, the plaintiffs’

reply thereto, the Court-ordered supplemental briefing, and

following an on-the-record conference on the plaintiffs’ motion

on February 11, 2010, and for the reasons stated in a memorandum

of law bearing today’s date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said

motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows:

1. The plaintiffs’ motion is granted to the extent

that Ms. Michael is ordered to post an appeal bond for $25,000. 

The plaintiffs’ motion is denied in all other respects.

2. Ms. Michael shall post an appeal bond for $25,000,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 to secure

payment of the plaintiffs’ costs on appeal.

3. The bond pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
2

Procedure 7 shall be posted within one week from the date of this

Order.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Mary A. McLaughlin

MARY A. McLAUGHLIN, J.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GRACE LAWRENCE 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TRANS UNION LLC 

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 

Defendant. 

C.A. NO: 02-CV-4440 

TRANS UNION LLC’S UNOPPOSED MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY TO OPPOSITION 

TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 Trans Union LLC, by and through its undersigned attorneys, moves, unopposed, for an 

extension of time to file a Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, and 

states as follows: 

 1. On June 25, 2003, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation that Plaintiff file an 

Opposition to Trans Union’s Motion for Summary Judgment on or before July 10, 2003. 

Plaintiff filed her opposition on that date. 

 2. The stipulation required Trans Union to file its Reply thereto by July 21, 2003. 

 3. Plaintiff’s opposition to summary judgment is 51 pages, longer than counsel for 

Trans Union anticipated. 

 4. Lead counsel for Trans Union, Bruce S. Luckman, Esq., left for vacation on July 

18, and is scheduled to return on August 3. Trans Union would be greatly prejudiced were it 

required to file its reply without opportunity for its lead trial counsel to prepare the final version. 

 5. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, Trans Union respectfully requests an 

extension of time until August 6, 2003, for Trans Union to file its Reply. 

Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 27 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 1 of 2
 6. Counsel for Trans Union has conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and Plaintiff 

does not oppose this motion. 

 WHEREFORE, Defendant Trans Union respectfully requests an extension of time until 

Wednesday, August 6, 2003 to file its Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Trans Union’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment. 

 Respectfully Submitted, 

 

 SATZBERG, TRICHON, 

 KOGAN & WERTHEIMER, P.C. 

 ___________________________________ 

 MARK E. KOGAN (10186) 

 BRUCE S. LUCKMAN (38636) 

 TIMOTHY P. CREECH (81728) 

 1818 Market St., 30th Floor 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103 

 (215) 575-7600; Fax: (215) 575-7688 

 Counsel for Defendant, 

 Trans Union LLC 

DATED: July 21, 2003 

Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 27 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

December 3, 1953

No. 57669.

#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 159668-K and 175604-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are composed wholly or in chief value of brass, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, the same in all material respects as those involved in Abstract 57391, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BERNICE BARKSDALE : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

KHL MARKET SQUARE, L.P., et al. : NO. 02-4397

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28TH day of March, 2003, it having been reported that the issues

between plaintiff and defendants in this action have been settled, and upon Order of the court,

pursuant to the provisions of 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this court, it is

ORDERED this case is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without

costs, AS TO ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS. The Clerk is directed to mark this case

CLOSED.

ATTEST: or BY THE COURT:

By: /s/ Norma L. Shapiro, J. 

 Madeline F. Ward, Deputy Clerk J.

Case 2:02-cv-04397-NS Document 9 Filed 03/28/2003 Page 1 of 1
# C_2018134EN.01001902.xml

| 16.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2018 — CEE Bankwatch Network v Commission

(Case T-307/16) (1)

1

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a Commission decision on granting a Euratom loan in support of the Ukraine safety upgrade program of nuclear power units - Partial refusal of access - Exception concerning the protection of the public interest in the field of international relations - Exception concerning the protection of commercial interests - Overriding public interest - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Application to documents relating to decisions taken under the EAEC Treaty))

(2018/C 134/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CEE Bankwatch Network (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: C. Kiss, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Zadra, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and C. Cunniffe, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially M. Holt and D. Robertson, and subsequently S. Brandon, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 2319 final of 15 April 2016 refusing, on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), access to several documents relating to Commission Decision C(2013) 3496 final of 24 June 2013 on granting a Euratom loan in support of the Ukraine safety upgrade program of nuclear power units.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders CEE Bankwatch Network to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CEE Bankwatch Network to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.

1

---
PHL_A #1666306 v1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RAMONA ERAZO, :

:

Plaintiff, :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4438

v. :

:

TRANS UNION, LLC; ROBINSON/MAY and :

WELLS FARGO BANK, :

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

TO THE CLERK OF COURT:

Kindly enter the appearance of John K. Semler, Jr., Esquire as counsel for 

defendant “Wells Fargo Bank.”

BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP

By: _______________________________________

John K. Semler, Jr., Esquire

1735 Market Street, 51st Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599

215-864-8121

215-864-9283 (Fax)

Dated: September 12, 2002

Case 2:02-cv-04438-TJS Document 9 Filed 09/12/2002 Page 1 of 2
PHL_A #1666306 v1 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, John K. Semler, Jr., Esquire hereby certify that I have caused a true and correct 

copy of the Entry of Appearance to be served this date, by first class mail, upon:

Mark Mailman, Esquire

Francis & Mailman, P.C.

Land Title Building, 19th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19110

Timothy P. Creech, Esquire

Marion, Satzberg, Trichon, Kogan & Wertheimer

1818 Market Street, 30th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Dated: September 12, 2002 _____________________________________

John K. Semler, Jr.

Case 2:02-cv-04438-TJS Document 9 Filed 09/12/2002 Page 2 of 2
## NO. 12

- 22

- 00064

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TIMBER LAKE ESTATES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. , APPELLANT

V.

JAMES DRISCOLL AND CAROL DRISCOLL , APPELLEE S §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 173RD

JUDICIA L DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM

T hi s appeal is being dismissed for fai lure to comply wit h t he Texas R ules of App ellate

Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3. Timber Lake Estates Property Owner s Association , Inc., filed a notice of appeal on April

1 , 2022

. P ursuant to Rule 32.1, Timber Lake ’ s docke ting statement was due to have be en filed at

the time appeal was pe rfect ed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 32.1. On April 5

, this C ourt requested that

Timber Lake file a dock etin g state ment within ten days if it had not already done so. Timber

Lake did not file the docketing statement as reques te d

. On April 21
, the Clerk of this C ourt issued a noti ce advi sing Timber Lake that the docketing statement was past due. The notice pr o vided th at unless the docketing statement was

filed on or before May 2 , the appeal would be presented for dismissal in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Proce dure 42 .3. The date for filing the docketing statement has passed, and

Timber Lake has n ot compli ed with the Court’ s request.

Because Timber Lake failed, after notice, to comply wit h Rule 32.1, the appe al is

di

smissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c) (a fter giving ten da ys ’ notice

, appe llate court may dismiss2 appeal because appellant failed to comp ly wit h a requiremen t o f the appellate rules, a court
order, or a notice from the clerk req uiring a response or other a ction within a speci fied time )

. Opinion delivered May 18, 2022. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 1 8 , 2022

NO

. 12

- 22

- 00064

- CV

TIMBER LAKE ESTATES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. , Appellant V. JAMES DRISCOLL AND CAROL DRISCOLL , Appellee s

Appe al fro m the 173rd District Court

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CV17

- 0093

- 3 )

THIS CAU SE came on to be heard on the appellate re cord, and the same being consider ed, it is the opinion of this Court th at the ap peal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDER ED, ADJUDGED a nd DECREED by this Cou rt t hat this appeal be, and the same is , he reby dism issed ; and that this deci sion be certifie d to t he court

below for observance.
By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
# C_2017144EN.01004302.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/43

---

Order of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Karl Conzelmann v EUIPO (LIKE IT)

(Case T-21/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for registration of the word mark LIKE IT - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 144/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Karl Conzelmann GmbH + Co. KG (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Graul and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 November 2015 (Case R 223/2015-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign LIKE IT as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Karl Conzelmann GmbH + Co. KG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Karl Conzelmann GmbH + Co. KG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.

1

---
#### Falvey, for use, *vs.*Jones.

A rule *nisi*to foreclose a mortgage on land must be served by the sheriff. Service thereof by an unofficial person is not legal.

October 7, 1887.

Mortgages. Service. Process. Before Judge Marshall J. Olarke. Fulton superior court. March term, 1887.

Reported in the decision.

Broyles *&*Johnston, for plaintiff.

No appearance for defendant.

*131Simmons, Justice.

Falvey, the plaintiff in error, filed his petition in Fulton superior court to foreclose a mortgage on certain land in Fulton county. The defendant, Jones, resided in Haber-sham county. A rule *nisi*was issued, and served on Jones by one Dairs, a private individual, who resided in Haber-sham county. He made affidavit that he had served Jones with a copy of said rule *nisi.*At the second term of the court, plaintiff’s counsel moved to make the rule absolute which motion was refused by the presiding judge, upon the ground that Jones, the defendant, had not been served legally with a copy of the rule nisi; in other words, that a service made by an unofficial person was not a legal service. To this ruling of the judge the plaintiff excepted, and brings the case here on writ of error.

It is contended by counsel that, as section 1962 of the code does not say in terms that the rule *nisi*shall be served by the sheriff, it is legal for any one to serve it who will make affidavit of the service. We do not concur in this construction of the section. We think that a rule *nisi*is judicial process. It commands the defendant to appear at the next term, and show cause, etc. It is a process or order of the court, and it is the duty of the sheriff <£ to execute and return the process and orders of any court of record in this State.” Code, §361. All that was necessary to do was for the clerk to make a certified copy of the rule *nisi,*and send it with the original to the sheriff of Habersham county (with his fee for service), let the sheriff serve the copy and return the original to the clerk with his entry of service thereon. It is usual to provide in the rule the mode of service, but this is not necessary.

We are the more confident that we are right in this construction, from the uniform practice in the courts. As far as we know or can learn, the practice in all the courts of this State has uniformly been for these rules to be served by the sheriffs.

Judgment affirmed.